1. Superintendent
U.S. Coast Guard Academy
15 Mohegan Avenue
New London, CT 06320
(860) 444-8383
1610
January 17, 2012
MEMORANDUM
From: R. E. Bowman, CDR
Chief, Law Section
Reply to
Attn of:
CDR Bowman
x 8383
To: File
Subj: CLASS OBSERVATION—DR. WILLIAM BRADFORD
Ref: (a) NEASC Standards for Accreditation; Standards 2.1, 4.1-4.4, 4.6, 4.32, 5.11
1. On 13 January 2012, in accordance with, and to promote and adhere to, the standards listed in
reference (a), I observed Dr. Bradford’s third period Criminal Justice class (#2391). Professor Bradford is
serving in a 1-year temporary adjunct (Law Lecturer) faculty position. He teaches four, 50-minute
periods of Criminal Justice – the introductory legal course required for all cadets – on a Monday-
Wednesday-Friday schedule to over 100 students.
2. Content of class: The observed class was the third block of instruction for the course and was
designed to cover the basic categories of law, such as the distinction between civil and criminal law,
along with the reasons therefore.
3. Tenor of the class: Dr. Bradford ran a very professional, efficient class that was infused with energy,
wit, and enthusiasm for the subject matter. After a brief review of the different sources of law – using
recent litigation over the Hawaii “Super Ferry” - Dr. Bradford led his class through the substantive
material. Dr. Bradford kept the class on track at all times and proceeded through the lesson’s intended
materials smoothly, and at a good pace. In general, all students were prepared, interested, and attentive
throughout the 50-minute period.
4. Feedback: I was impressed by Dr. Bradford’s superlative use of supplemental knowledge and
materials (ranging from brief discussions of English Courts during Kind Richard’s time, to economic
theory, to the Nuremberg war crimes trials held in the wake of World War II, to recent Supreme Court
precedent) to bolster (and deepen) the points raised by the text and lecture. I also appreciated his creative
professional development efforts in support of the course’s communications objectives. For example, the
subtle “charging” of students 25 cents for every use of a verbal crutch – suck as “like,” “um,” or “so” –
was both humorous and effective. While conceding the lack of clear answers to many of the questions he
raised, Dr. Bradford effectively used class discussion and “bonus” materials to challenge his students to
think critically about the classifications and sources of law. He did so while deftly moving through the
(necessarily) impressive scope of material. Overall, Dr. Bradford provided a very solid presentation of
potentially dry, but fundamental material that was well received by the students.
5. The above was discussed and agreed to between myself and Dr. Bradford at an informal meeting on 13
January, held shortly after the observed class.
#
Copy: LCDR C. A. Tribolet, Criminal Justice Course Coordinator